Forward to the Past

In 1811, a mob of anti-technology British crusaders known as Luddites protested the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution in general and automated looms in particular. Destroying factory machinery, burning mills, and intimidating opponents, they fought a doomed crusade to stem innovation's inevitable advance. And though the movement lasting only two years is little more than an obscure footnote to European history, its spirit lives on in those opposing technological changes in a game played an ocean away and two centuries into the future.

As the Luddites before them, those opposing the expanded use of instant replay in major league baseball base their objections less on rational thought than on illogical fears of change. Baseball purists celebrate its sacred cow traditions and rationalize its imperfections as further proof of the game's not to be tampered with flawlessness. Umpiring mistakes are part of the game's allure. "Yer blind, you bum" taunts from fans are reminders of days gone by. And on-the-field arguments after blown calls are inseparable from the game's charm.

That Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, and Cy Young would have little trouble recognizing today's game is not evidence of perfection. Respect for tradition is one thing; yet a reflexive unwillingness to improve what clearly needs improving is a tradition unworthy of veneration. And by unthinkingly embracing an idealized vision of what was, modern day Luddites are looking less positively back to the future than negatively forward to the past.

Of all the arguments against expanding instant replay in professional baseball, arguably the most absurd is the loss of the "human element." At its simplest level, reflexive worship of this defining characteristic of America's pastime is a euphemistic willingness to accept umpiring errors however undeniable in fact and harmful in result. As Bud Selig has said, "The humanness (read mistakes) of the umpires is part of the game."

Though technology exists to reduce errors, because to err is human and to umpire is to err, replay critics insist it shouldn't be used. And though the logic is unfathomable the result is clear. Blind to what needs to be done, baseball has ensured its umpires equal blindness to mistakes that are plainly visible to anyone with a television set.

Instant replay doesn't eliminate the human element. It supports it. Does a car eliminate the human element because it is more efficient than walking? Does a computer eliminate the human element because it more efficiently gathers information? Does an aspirin eliminate the human element because it "unnaturally" reduces pain? Humans rely on an infinite number of advancements every day to enhance their lives. Why should it be any different for baseball?

Comparatively, other major professional sports recognize that technology as an officiating aid does not violate the human element by changing it. To that end, the human element has not been eliminated by the NFL adopting instant replay in 1999, the NHL in 1991, and the NBA in 2002. After all, who created the technology on which instant replay is based? Aliens? And who reviews instant replay videos? Robots?

Still another argument against instant replay is that it will slow the game down. True, at times games seem interminably long in an interminably long season. And true, since the 1970s the average time for games has increased some 20 minutes to just under three hours. Yet however slow-moving baseball is or may appear to be, it has nothing to do with its current limited form of replay and would unlikely slow further should its use be expanded.

The lengthening of games over the last forty years is due to increased commercial time and unenforced rules requiring pitchers to promptly pitch and hitters to remain in the batter's box. Longer games have nothing to do with baseball replays introduced in 2008 for disputed home runs. Indeed, since then the duration of games has remained constant at about two hours and 50 minutes: a full 17 minutes shorter than average NFL contests. If anything, with fewer protracted on-the-field arguments for questionable home runs, current replays may have actually slowed the lengthening game inertia prior to its initiation.

But what if instant replay was expanded to include disputed fair-or-foul decisions and caught-or-trapped balls as the new MLB labor agreement calls for? Wouldn't that extend the length of games even more? The answer is not really. For a 12-day period extending from the end of June to mid-July 2010, ESPN reviewed every call in every game played during that period. Excluding balls and strikes, only 1.3 calls per game were questionable enough for instant replay review. While replaying this small number of close calls would unlikely slow the pace of games, there is little doubt that lacking review, these calls significantly impacted game results. According to ESPN, in this sample of close calls umpire decisions were wrong twenty percent of the time.

An equally ludicrous objection to expanding replay is that doing so would still not guarantee decision-making accuracy. While true that a foolproof replay system is an impossibility, failure to reach an absurdly high standard of success is not evidence to abandon its implementation. It is reason to further its use. For if falling short of perfection disqualifies cutting edge technology from assisting umpires, how then is it reasonable to accept far less perfection without its benefit?

The final argument opposing instant replay is that in the long run errors even themselves out. True, given enough games over enough seasons, blown calls will likely balance out for all teams. And true, giving enough monkeys enough time with enough typewriters they might reproduce Hamlet. However, in the short-term, it is highly unlikely that simians will mimic Shakespeare or that umpiring blunders will equalize. This could prove fatal for the team at the wrong end of a short-term screw-up in a heated pennant race or playoff series. And in our "whatever can go wrong will go wrong" world, this has happened before and undoubtedly will happen again.

There is little value in detailing the most outrageously bad umpiring gaffes in the most significant of games. In contests big and small, in moments undeniably significant and seemingly trivial, anyone following our national pastime for any length of time knows that correctable "human element" mistakes are regularly made that are not part of the romance of the game. "Getting it right" should trump virtually all objections. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case.

Most diehard fans already know of Don Denkinger's World Series call in 1985 leading to a Cardinal loss and Kansas City's only title. Even lesser followers associate the names of Jeffrey Maier and Steve Bartman with interference calls never made in the ALCS of 1996 and the NLCS of 2003. And even the most casual of water cooler enthusiasts know that a pitcher lost a perfect game last year when an umpire called a runner safe who was clearly out.

Not expanding replay is yet another "whatever can go wrong will go wrong" disaster waiting to happen. Each blunder is another brick in the wall undermining the integrity of a game that in revenue, in average attendance, in television ratings, and in "most favorite sport" surveys is no longer our national pastime.

At least in small part, this is due to an unwavering embrace of what was for what should be. Deeply and mindlessly rooted in tradition, it will continue to be so at its peril. For until recently unwilling to make necessary changes, baseball increasingly resembled an unable to adapt dinosaur moving forward to the past. And now subject to an agreement with umpires, the new MLB labor contract requires the expanded use of instant replay. At long last, it is hoped that this is one decision that the men in blue have the foresight not to screw up.